Individual rights v. governent intervention

Citizen said:

Well, it would be an interesting conversation if the critics were to actually discuss rather than duck, distort, and evade.

For example, SteveinCO, even after I explained that nothing about consensual government would preclude arresting and trying criminals from a self-defense point of view, went on to ignore what I had just said, creating the strawman argument that a criminal could nullify the prosecution by claiming he didn't consent. I guess it never occurred to him that the whole reason government can arrest criminals now derives from self-defense--people, aggregated into a society, protecting themselves from further criminal depredations by tracking down the criminal and tossing him in the pokey. In his view, government didn't get a delegated power arising from self-defense to detect and prosecute crime. It does it just because it can.

Another example would be the moderator's comment above about being fascinated by people that find fault...but do not have a viable plan. I'll bet he would have said the same thing in 1689 to John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. You know those new-fangled ideas where people, gathering into a society for mutual protection of property...delegated powers...consent of the governed...all that stuff. Pretty radical stuff; no real solution on how to implement it. I'll bet certain contrarians would have said the same thing about Locke--no viable solution. Well, not until 87 years later, anyway, when Tom Jefferson put pen to paper and summarized it with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

So, since the critics to this point are employing a number of different dodges, demonstrating a genuine unwillingness to discuss fairly and rationally, maybe you and I will have to be the ones to discuss it. You see, in my absence, I became a lot less concerned about OCDO. It doesn't really matter much to me whether I stay or go. I'm relaxed enough to determine my price to participate in a discussion, set that price, and then adhere to it. Basically, my price is that anybody wants me to talk to them here, they must completely eschew the whole litany of goofy debate techniques designed to avoid the actual point. You know--ad hominem, strawman, etc., etc., etc. It will probably sound arrogant, but if they're not good enough to discuss something without resorting to those techniques, they don't deserve my attention.

Click to expand...

Well, I noticed you started posting again the other day, and I was pleased to see you back. I hope you find some value in continuing, but, I understand if you don't. For what it's worth, I typically enjoy reading your posts a great deal.

Grapeshot said:

That was clearly an observation, an expression of discontent. Yes I have the same problem with Locke, he defines/identifies the problem, but didn't set forth how to arrive at the solution - perhaps if he had lived longer or been less concerned with edits.

All of that aside John Locke did serve as a great inspiration for our founding fathers, who put some notable action to his words.

You would seem to take these things personally, which is a shame. Facts not personalities are what makes this forum so successful.

Click to expand...

If we can morally suspend our principles until we find a way to implement them comfortably, they aren't principles.

If we suspend our principles until we find a way to implement them comfortably, we're willingly and knowingly evil.

The general concept is that you should do what is right, even if it brings negative consequences. It often does, no? Why do we teach and accept this concept in every aspect of life, except government?

ATM said:

Many as well still suffer from the romantic but flawed notion that government is the indispensable provider of law and order rather than a parasitic and predatory institution of force. They imagine, despite the history and nature of government, that it can be limited and used for good.

Click to expand...

I started on this journey...well, lets skip forward a bit. Let me say, I've made a bit of a study of English government over the last few years. I'm not gonna be confused with a genuine scholar; but, I have been over the territory quite a bit.

One big thing I've noticed: the history of government in England includes one long running story of people getting out from under government abuse, wresting their rights from government, one little piece at a time. From the time Rome's influence in Britannia waned, to the rise of the Anglo-Saxons, through the Norman Conquest, on and on and on, you can mark the little advancements in rights. Right up to John Locke's Second Treatise on Government from which the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence comes.

Why stop there? Why not keep up the advance?

In a letter to a contemporary, Thomas Jefferson rhetorically asked why we should be bound to an outdated system. My words next: an outdated system lingering from a time when Saxons seized control of the country; when petty kings set themselves up on no more justification than "I've got more swords than you." Who says...who!!...that is the only way, that it can be no other way? Really? Just because that's the way a bunch of criminals did it? (See Thomas Paine's Common Sense)? Really?

The idea of consent of the governed in Second Treatise and the Declaration of Independence was another advancement. Partial implementation of consent by electing representatives (an idea that had to be fought for tooth and nail in itself) was just a step in the implementation of consent of the governed, another step in the overall advancement, not the stopping point.

Citizen said:

C'mon. Work with me here. We're talking about a different system. Whether you consented or not, upon conviction, off you go to prison. Consent does not, cannot, erase the right of others to protect themselves against your criminal depredations.

Click to expand...

But how do you get to decide what are criminal depredations against which you can defend yourself vs minor annoyances which must be tolerated so as to respect my rights?

Is walking across your posted property a major offense such that you can shoot me? Or a minor tort for which I might be expected to pay some minimal fine or other small penalty?

Are speeding, running red lights and stop signs, DUI, and shooting randomly into the air in urban areas real crimes that can be punished? Or is there no crime committed until someone's person or property is actually damaged?

Citizen said:

Also, consider, under a consenting system, taxes would be gone; in their place voluntary payments. First of all, I would instantly sign up for a mutual protection agency, and pay the fees. But, having done so, I would be keeping a bit of an eye on how that money was being spent. I get wind in the press that you--as a criminal defendant--had your rights violated, suddenly I'm going to become very focused on finding out whether your rights were actually violated, and if they were, the mutual protection society, or whatever we call it, gets no more checks from me. I'll go shopping for one in my area that has a better track record.

Click to expand...

How do you settle disputes between these privately funded mutual aid societies? When a member of one society has a complaint against a member of another, how do you resolve those?

To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to alternate forms of government. As a Christian, I look forward to the day when Christ returns and reigns on the earth personally.

And as a practicing Mormon, my people's fairly recent history (1850s) is replete with a full-on theocracy with mostly free markets, as well as a theocratic communitarianism marked by private ownership of property and a strong encouragement to turn back surplus every year for the greater good. I'm not expert on the Amish, but suspect they currently live something at least passingly similar. I'm convinced that were a group of people as small as say 200 families able to actually set aside jealousies and laziness to really live such a society would rather quickly find themselves very wealthy.

As a strong proponent of federalism, I'd love to see the States reclaim their proper power to have much diversity of culture, law, even organization. So long as some basic rights are protected, a few prohibitions to the States not violated, and the form of government at the State level credibly passes as a "Republic" per federal constitutional guarantee, this should be permissible. I strongly suspect this would not go far enough for you and the anarchists, but at the State level, communities could be empowered to order themselves within very broad limits, I should think.

Bottom line, I'm not opposed to alternate forms of society or governance.

But if we're going to talk about some new form of society or (lack of) government, it might be well for its proponents to lay out its fundamental workings rather than starting by attacking various flaws in the current government (or even the government as it should operate under the constitution) as they seem to be to some critics.

Start with a few posts in the Federalists and anti-Federalists spirit of explaining how your ideal society functions, how it handles basic services and dispute resolution, how it determines what is a right and what isn't.

If you propose what you want to propose, it can be discussed. But if current government is criticized and lack of government is promised to avoid those problems, don't be surprised if some of us--in good faith--ask about how you intend to maintain the good things government currently does.

This is clearly an area where you're going to need to be closer to walls of text (with paragraphs) than bumper stickers to impart any real understanding or education.

Charles

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

That was clearly an observation, an expression of discontent. Yes I have the same problem with Locke, he defines/identifies the problem, but didn't set forth how to arrive at the solution - perhaps if he had lived longer or been less concerned with edits.

All of that aside John Locke did serve as a great inspiration for our founding fathers, who put some notable action to his words.

You would seem to take these things personally, which is a shame. Facts not personalities are what makes this forum so successful.

Click to expand...

stealthyeliminator said:

If we can morally suspend our principles until we find a way to implement them comfortably, they aren't principles.

If we suspend our principles until we find a way to implement them comfortably, we're willingly and knowingly evil.

The general concept is that you should do what is right, even if it brings negative consequences. It often does, no? Why do we teach and accept this concept in every aspect of life, except government?

Click to expand...

Who said anything about suspending our principles?

Yes, we should try to do what is right including in our relationship with our government.

Grapeshot said:

Who said anything about suspending our principles?

Yes, we should try to do what is right including in our relationship with our government.

Click to expand...

You did. Perhaps you didn't realize it.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Who said anything about suspending our principles?

Yes, we should try to do what is right including in our relationship with our government.

Click to expand...

stealthyeliminator said:

You did. Perhaps you didn't realize it.

Click to expand...

Reference please.

utbagpiper said:

SNIP If you propose what you want to propose, it can be discussed. But if current government is criticized and lack of government is promised to avoid those problems, don't be surprised if some of us--in good faith--ask about how you intend to maintain the good things government currently does.

This is clearly an area where you're going to need to be closer to walls of text (with paragraphs) than bumper stickers to impart any real understanding or education.

Charles

Click to expand...

Ummm. No.

I will say this again. And, keep saying it.

I am not the one advocating the perpetuation of a 4500-year old institution with a proven track record of human misery, death, and economic destruction. And, lots and lots of it. It absolutely is not up to me to justify not hurting people, stealing their production, reducing the quality of their lives, or killing them--to a huge degree in uncountable numbers. It is completely and utterly up to advocates of government to thoroughly justify the necessity they claim. Thoroughly, deeply, thoughtfully, looking at every angle imaginable. To fail to at least do that privately is, given the vast destruction, both massively irresponsible towards his fellow man, and supremely arrogant. I won't more than mention in passing the irresponsibility or cold-bloodedness of not seeking privately an alternative that does not create human misery, death, and economic destruction.

Over and over again I have heard proponents give some variation of the "necessary evil" explanation for government. In high school, I actually believed it. Later, too. Then one day I noticed the almost Pollyanna attitude of such proponents. They always, without exception, omitted to explain how big the evil compared to how small the benefit. The few explanations I have heard were almost always fear-mongering about criminals taking over or massive social disorder, arguments plainly affected by their own small-minded view of their fellow human beings, almost certainly affected by their own view of themselves.

Arrogance. Yeah, I said it. Yes, I did. Here's what the comments of several proponents of government in this thread boil down to: I think compulsory government is necessary. And, since I think it is necessary, that's all it takes for me to force you to go along with my ideas. For me to think so. That's all it takes. Because I think its necessary.

Arrogance. Pure, unadulterated arrogance. "Because I think its necessary."

stealthyeliminator said:

You did. Perhaps you didn't realize it.

Click to expand...

Gently, now. He doesn't realize that by espousing compulsory government, he's watered down or sacrificed the principle that "all men are created equal..."

How can an equal ascend to a position where he can legitimately rule me unless I genuinely consent to let him do so?

Grapeshot said:

Reference please.

Click to expand...

You imply throughout (see quotes below) your dialogue that a prerequisite to the abolishment of government is the full assurance of a functional alternate system (ironically, even though the current system is not functional, but that's beside the point). The position you're contradicting (at least, mine. I will not try to speak for other participants) is that if a system is known to be morally unsound, it should be abolished and opposed regardless of the existence or assurance of a ready alternative.

Grapeshot said:

I am fascinated by people that find fault wherever they look, list and/or rant about the negativity within our government, yet do not have a viable plan that they promote for a better system.

Sure there are things that need to be corrected, but not IMO to the point of putting the whole house to the torch.

We are getting too off topic here and need to return to the subject of the OP.

Click to expand...

As if an alternative is necessary to identify and oppose immorality...

Grapeshot said:

You've discovered for yourself the chink in the armor of those that purport to be anarchists.

Obviously you have not had your brain properly washed & rinsed by Hollywood and TV if you think the good guy (often played by a BG) doesn't always win.

Click to expand...

While the post you reference is factually incorrect, you here again imply that an alternative is a prerequisite by stating that it is a chink in the armor of anarchists that a functioning alternative system is not assured. Your second sentence here is also humorously consequentialist. utbagpiper would approve.

Grapeshot said:

See no suggestion of any such thing. There are many that will choose to not engage this endless (pointless?) circle of dialog.

It has been said repeatedly that there are two ways to argue a point - with force or logic. I have not discovered a third.

When you find a solution to any of the above, please let us know. Until then, in a perfect world.......

Click to expand...

Here you imply that the success of your dissenters rests on their presentation of a viable alternate system. Thus, the immorality of the present system must be accepted until that time.

Grapeshot said:

That was clearly an observation, an expression of discontent. Yes I have the same problem with Locke, he defines/identifies the problem, but didn't set forth how to arrive at the solution - perhaps if he had lived longer or been less concerned with edits.

All of that aside John Locke did serve as a great inspiration for our founding fathers, who put some notable action to his words.

You would seem to take these things personally, which is a shame. Facts not personalities are what makes this forum so successful.

Click to expand...

Your problem with Locke is that he identified problems without setting forth how to arrive at the solution. Setting forth how to arrive at a solution isn't necessary to oppose perpetuation of the problem, and in fact is an unreasonable excuse that is successfully used to intentionally perpetuate the problem indefinitely.

Citizen said:

I am not the one advocating the perpetuation of a 4500-year old institution with a proven track record of human misery, death, and economic destruction. And, lots and lots of it. It absolutely is not up to me to justify not hurting people, stealing their production, reducing the quality of their lives, or killing them--to a huge degree in uncountable numbers. It is completely and utterly up to advocates of government to thoroughly justify the necessity they claim. Thoroughly, deeply, thoughtfully, looking at every angle imaginable. To fail to at least do that privately is, given the vast destruction, both massively irresponsible towards his fellow man, and supremely arrogant. I won't more than mention in passing the irresponsibility or cold-bloodedness of not seeking privately an alternative that does not create human misery, death, and economic destruction.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess I have to admit to just being too stupid and ignorant to be able to imagine any other system that is likely to protect my rights while also providing the necessary infrastructure to encourage prosperity. I've traveled to some beautiful regions where, for all intents and purposes, there was no government. The people did seem to live in peace. But without much of the infrastructure I want.

So, if the critics of our current government will not deign to provide me with some solid examples of what they would do instead, I guess I shall continue to wallow in my current state of ignorance, stupidity, and perhaps even arrogance.

I do note that once one removes the emotion and pejoratives from you post, what you've essentially done is reversed the usual order of things. Good or bad, 4,500 years sets a strong precedence and those advocating for change bear the burden to convince the rest of us that change is warranted.

The founders did this when they published the DoI, the "War Inevitable" speech, "Common Sense", and other such material.

I think the real arrogance is on the part of those who would ask me to cast off 200+ years of constitutional government in favor of something they promise will be much better but are unwilling and unable to describe in any real detail. Reminds me a bit of Obamacare promises to much improve medicine, but needing to be passed to find out what it is.

Not much of an interesting conversation under the terms you've set. So I suspect you'll be left to vigorously but vaguely agree with folks who are already of like mind. A real shame, because I truly am interested in learning more of alternate forms of society and (non) government. But if my honest inquiry gets me labeled arrogant, I won't waste my time.

Good day, sir.

Charles

stealthyeliminator said:

You imply throughout (see quotes below) your dialogue that a prerequisite to the abolishment of government is the full assurance of a functional alternate system (ironically, even though the current system is not functional, but that's beside the point). The position you're contradicting (at least, mine. I will not try to speak for other participants) is that if a system is known to be morally unsound, it should be abolished and opposed regardless of the existence or assurance of a ready alternative.



As if an alternative is necessary to identify and oppose immorality...



While the post you reference is factually incorrect, you here again imply that an alternative is a prerequisite by stating that it is a chink in the armor of anarchists that a functioning alternative system is not assured. Your second sentence here is also humorously consequentialist. utbagpiper would approve.



Here you imply that the success of your dissenters rests on their presentation of a viable alternate system. Thus, the immorality of the present system must be accepted until that time.



Your problem with Locke is that he identified problems without setting forth how to arrive at the solution. Setting forth how to arrive at a solution isn't necessary to oppose perpetuation of the problem, and in fact is an unreasonable excuse that is successfully used to intentionally perpetuate the problem indefinitely.

Click to expand...

I do not agree with that assessment + that neither was my intention.

Agree that it should be opposed but not regardless of [strike]the existence or assurance of a ready[/strike] alternative.

Grapeshot said:

Obviously you have not had your brain properly washed & rinsed by Hollywood and TV if you think the good guy (often played by a BG) doesn't always win.

Click to expand...

The logic (false) here may be summarized thusly: Because the good guys do not always win, we must institutionalize the bad, force and require it to be a monopoly, and then limit that monopoly with a constitution and the constant vigilance of the good guys.

Citizen said:

I started on this journey...well, lets skip forward a bit. Let me say, I've made a bit of a study of English government over the last few years. I'm not gonna be confused with a genuine scholar; but, I have been over the territory quite a bit.

One big thing I've noticed: the history of government in England includes one long running story of people getting out from under government abuse, wresting their rights from government, one little piece at a time. From the time Rome's influence in Britannia waned, to the rise of the Anglo-Saxons, through the Norman Conquest, on and on and on, you can mark the little advancements in rights. Right up to John Locke's Second Treatise on Government from which the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence comes.

Why stop there? Why not keep up the advance?

In a letter to a contemporary, Thomas Jefferson rhetorically asked why we should be bound to an outdated system. My words next: an outdated system lingering from a time when Saxons seized control of the country; when petty kings set themselves up on no more justification than "I've got more swords than you." Who says...who!!...that is the only way, that it can be no other way? Really? Just because that's the way a bunch of criminals did it? (See Thomas Paine's Common Sense)? Really?

The idea of consent of the governed in Second Treatise and the Declaration of Independence was another advancement. Partial implementation of consent by electing representatives (an idea that had to be fought for tooth and nail in itself) was just a step in the implementation of consent of the governed, another step in the overall advancement, not the stopping point.

Click to expand...

A couple great quotes from Paine's (Common Sense).
" Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one."

" Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively be restraining our vices."

I would prefer a Government of Laws and not of men. John Adams, However, I also like Samuel Johnson's thoughts on government.

' I would not give half a guinea to live under one form of government rather than another. It is of no moment to the happiness of an individual.".. Quoted by James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson (1772).

Let me ask this question to you fine folks, regarding consent of a citizen. If a citizen votes in an election does said citizen consent to be governed?

Great thread.

Regards
CCJ

stealthyeliminator said:

SNIP The position you're contradicting...is that if a system is known to be morally unsound, it should be abolished and opposed regardless of the existence or assurance of a ready alternative.


As if an alternative is necessary to identify and oppose immorality...

Here you imply that the success of your dissenters rests on their presentation of a viable alternate system. Thus, the immorality of the present system must be accepted until that time.

...Setting forth how to arrive at a solution isn't necessary to oppose perpetuation of the problem, and in fact is an unreasonable excuse that is successfully used to intentionally perpetuate the problem indefinitely.

Click to expand...

It occurs to me that your arguments would have applied equally well to the proponents of slavery in 1860.

The slave economy of the South had no assurance of a ready alternative.

The compulsory government proponents would have required an alternative to slavery to oppose the immorality.

The compulsory government proponents would have required the abolitionists to present a viable alternate system, slavery being accepted until that time. Perpetuated indefinitely.

Grapeshot said:

I do not agree with that assessment + that neither was my intention.

Agree that it should be opposed but not regardless of [strike]the existence or assurance of a ready[/strike] alternative.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said... You believe that we must wait for an alternative before abolishing what we know to be wrong. That is suspension of principles pending an alternative protecting our comfort. Edit: Strikes removed. Edit: It occurs to me that your post is ambiguous. Can you clarify where your agreement and disagreement lies (lay, lie, whatever?)?

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Obviously you have not had your brain properly washed & rinsed by Hollywood and TV if you think the good guy (often played by a BG) doesn't always win.

Click to expand...

stealthyeliminator said:

The logic (false) here may be summarized thusly: Because the good guys do not always win, we must institutionalize the bad, force and require it to be a monopoly, and then limit that monopoly with a constitution and the constant vigilance of the good guys.

Click to expand...

Personal foul. Flag thrown.

You take my obviously tongue-in-cheek remark and elevate it to a level neither intended nor appropriate.

countryclubjoe said:

SNIP Let me ask this question to you fine folks, regarding consent of a citizen. If a citizen votes in an election does said citizen consent to be governed?

Click to expand...

A greater mind than I answered that question in the 1800's: Lysander Spooner in his essay, No Treason 1870.

Just for perspective, Spooner was writing against a proposal to try the leaders of the South for treason. While supporting his arguments against trying them, Spooner rationally devastated the false premises underlying the US Constitution.

Along the way, he also answered your question. His answer, "no." His reasoning was that plenty of people voted defensively, selecting the lesser of two evils to reduce the negative impact on themselves, rather than because they actually consented to be the victim of either evil.

For myself, lets delve a little deeper. A few questions and answers (my answers, anyway).

If a person votes when he is, say, 21 years old, does that implied consent lock him into a life-time of consent? No. He may be like me. He relied on his teachers in school. He maybe bought the teachers' explanations that voting is a big responsibility that it is important to exercise. Not unlike fraud, when he later discovers the shallowness of the teachers' ideas, he has no obligation to continue consenting. When he discovers for himself the falsehoods, the lies, the distortions, he can revoke his consent.

If a person votes, does that imply consent? No. My basic reasons are Spooners and the one I just gave above. But, lets look a little deeper at implied consent. It is a legal fiction. Its just a ploy for government to excuse and justify ruling me and my friends, and my family. Nothing more. Just an excuse. Let me expose the lie.

State and federal government have had over 30 particular chances to obtain my express, individual consent. Tax returns. Until recently, they mailed the damned things to my home. That is to say, they knew exactly who I am, and exactly where I lived. But, not one of those sixty-odd state and federal returns asked for my express consent. That is to say, they had numerous opportunities--more than sixty!!!--to cement my consent in writing! To turn the weak implied consent into hard formal, written consent. But, no. Not one of those tax form ever had a line saying I consented to be ruled and pay taxes for the next year. On a question that is, according to the proponents of government the most important social agreement outside of marriage! No, no, no. I wasn't asked that. But, there has always been, for as long as I can remember, a check-off box indicating whether I wanted $1 to go to the presidential re-election fund. Oh, yes. They can take up some space on the page with that line, but they can't be bothered to give some space on the page to the most important social question (according to proponents of compulsory government) outside of marriage.

Last question. Is consent moot? Answer: Government intends to rule you whether you consent or not.

Citizen said:

A greater mind than I answered that question in the 1800's: Lysander Spooner in his essay, No Treason 1870.

Just for perspective, Spooner was writing against a proposal to try the leaders of the South for treason. While supporting his arguments against trying them, Spooner rationally devastated the false premises underlying the US Constitution.

Along the way, he also answered your question. His answer, "no." His reasoning was that plenty of people voted defensively, selecting the lesser of two evils to reduce the negative impact on themselves, rather than because they actually consented to be the victim of either evil.

For myself, lets delve a little deeper. A few questions and answers (my answers, anyway).

If a person votes when he is, say, 21 years old, does that implied consent lock him into a life-time of consent? No. He may be like me. He relied on his teachers in school. He maybe bought the teachers' explanations that voting is a big responsibility that it is important to exercise. Not unlike fraud, when he later discovers the shallowness of the teachers' ideas, he has no obligation to continue consenting. When he discovers for himself the falsehoods, the lies, the distortions, he can revoke his consent.

If a person votes, does that imply consent? No. My basic reasons are Spooners and the one I just gave above. But, lets look a little deeper at implied consent. It is a legal fiction. Its just a ploy for government to excuse and justify ruling me and my friends, and my family. Nothing more. Just an excuse. Let me expose the lie.

State and federal government have had over 30 particular chances to obtain my express, individual consent. Tax returns. Until recently, they mailed the damned things to my home. That is to say, they knew exactly who I am, and exactly where I lived. But, not one of those sixty-odd state and federal returns asked for my express consent. That is to say, they had numerous opportunities--more than sixty!!!--to cement my consent in writing! To turn the weak implied consent into hard formal, written consent. But, no. Not one of those tax form ever had a line saying I consented to be ruled and pay taxes for the next year. On a question that is, according to the proponents of government the most important social agreement outside of marriage! No, no, no. I wasn't asked that. But, there has always been, for as long as I can remember, a check-off box indicating whether I wanted $1 to go to the presidential re-election fund. Oh, yes. They can take up some space on the page with that line, but they can't be bothered to give some space on the page to the most important social question (according to proponents of compulsory government) outside of marriage.

Last question. Is consent moot? Answer: Government intends to rule you whether you consent or not.

Click to expand...

+1

But whether the constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain-- that it has either authorized such government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist... Lysander Spooner

Regards
CCJ

Citizen said:

Ummm. No.

I will say this again. And, keep saying it.

I am not the one advocating the perpetuation of a 4500-year old institution with a proven track record of human misery, death, and economic destruction. And, lots and lots of it. It absolutely is not up to me to justify not hurting people, stealing their production, reducing the quality of their lives, or killing them--to a huge degree in uncountable numbers. It is completely and utterly up to advocates of government to thoroughly justify the necessity they claim. Thoroughly, deeply, thoughtfully, looking at every angle imaginable. To fail to at least do that privately is, given the vast destruction, both massively irresponsible towards his fellow man, and supremely arrogant. I won't more than mention in passing the irresponsibility or cold-bloodedness of not seeking privately an alternative that does not create human misery, death, and economic destruction.

Over and over again I have heard proponents give some variation of the "necessary evil" explanation for government. In high school, I actually believed it. Later, too. Then one day I noticed the almost Pollyanna attitude of such proponents. They always, without exception, omitted to explain how big the evil compared to how small the benefit. The few explanations I have heard were almost always fear-mongering about criminals taking over or massive social disorder, arguments plainly affected by their own small-minded view of their fellow human beings, almost certainly affected by their own view of themselves.

Arrogance. Yeah, I said it. Yes, I did. Here's what the comments of several proponents of government in this thread boil down to: I think compulsory government is necessary. And, since I think it is necessary, that's all it takes for me to force you to go along with my ideas. For me to think so. That's all it takes. Because I think its necessary.

Arrogance. Pure, unadulterated arrogance. "Because I think its necessary."

Click to expand...

But, but, but...Citizen, don't you understand?! The government needs to govern us because human beings are too selfish, greedy and evil to govern themselves, so they need to elect other selfish, greedy, evil human beings to govern them to protect them from themselves! It's moral! It's stable!

Why, if we didn't have nannies bossing us around, half the population would kill each other over tomato plants and spring water, whilst the remaining half fell off a cliff because they were too stupid to understand the consequences!

Without the government, we would have no property, medicine or technology, and vikings would ride the dinosaurs across the Americas to conquer us all!!!